Search Ideas
1938 ideas match your query.:
Chronicles depend on the word ‘discussion’. They retell discussions, like the one between Newton’s and Einstein’s theories.
The original request has since gone. Benjamin’s articles idea (#2753) and my reply to it (#2878) are both archived.
The word ‘discussion’ sets the right expectation. Veritula is built on the idea that anything you post can be criticized. ‘Entry’, ‘post’, ‘note’, etc suggest a place to put information out unchallenged. Someone who only wants to share information can already do that with a single top-level idea.
https://veritula.com/discussions/veritula-meta/activities
It’s not quite the same but should give you an idea.
As of today’s deploy, ideas show far fewer buttons. The edit, repost, react, subscribe and menu buttons in an idea’s header stay hidden until you hover over the idea. The same goes for the React button in the activity feed and on profiles. Comment and Criticize are plain text rather than gray boxes. So while you read, those two are the only actions you see. Whether an idea is a criticism now shows in its header, not in a pill under the text.
What you said you were after, posting ideas without starting a discussion (#2813), is possible now: you can post on your profile (#4399). And as of f27080b9, the activity feed has a Profiles tab for browsing those posts.
Archiving #2753 for now, since #2751 and #2877 still stand. If profile posts fall short of what you had in mind, leave a criticism and I’ll take a look.
When it’s your own idea, I recommend adding implications to the idea itself, as part of a revision. That way, criticism chains stay intact.
You can already fund a bounty on each idea, and a bounty covering several would mean reworking how bounties are paid, shown and won.
I’m archiving #4824 for now, but if you have a case where separate bounties fall short, feel free to reply with a criticism and it’ll be unarchived automatically.
An ‘implies’ relation would build the implication into the site’s structure, where nobody could criticize it. But whether A implies B should be open to criticism like any other claim. Instead, criticize A directly: ‘A implies B, and C refutes B.’ That criticism stays pending until someone disputes the implication or answers C.
Done as of f27080b9, as tabs on the activity feed rather than a separate Posts tab: All, Discussions, and Profiles.
There are more profile posts now, and f27080b9 makes it a tab instead of its own page, so fewer posts aren’t as big a deal anyway.
As of 212b357f, revising goes in steps, and a reply only stays behind if you mark it, with a button that says what that means (“Answered by this revision” or “No longer applies”). That should prevent what happened with #3164.
Changing which replies apply without a new revision would rewrite a version’s history, which the timeline relies on. If replies still get lost, I’d rather let a new revision bring back the ones an earlier version left out.
Archiving #3166 for now. If it happens again, leave a comment and I’ll take a look.
Done as of 90bfadf1. The revision process is now divided over four guided steps with explanations.
Both done, as of 3945f28a and 82b641de. Long ideas now show cut short, with a Read more button that expands them in place. Discussions open with settled branches collapsed: the replies to comments and to addressed criticisms sit behind a plus on their gutter line. Pending criticisms, which decide whether an idea can be adopted, stay open. In most browsers, Cmd+F still finds text in collapsed branches and opens them.
Let’s keep this discussion on topic. I’ll follow up with you privately.
Done as of 6d4f4a70. You can now also reply to ideas directly from the activity feed.
Locking isn’t needed. Ideas are already immutable: other people can only add versions. The real problem was which version your profile shows. As of e3507e6f, the wall shows each post as its author last revised it, so other people’s revisions no longer speak for you there, and nobody has to be stopped from improving your ideas.
This criticism applies to #4520 as well.
Fixed as of 1a588356. Check your profile:
Forum Rules
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
Content written with AI may be submitted, but only if disclosed: when posting, tick “Text written with AI?” if AI wrote any part of your idea, including polishing or translating your own writing. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for content you don’t mark as written with AI. Repeat submission of content written with AI that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.
Badges reward your own contributions, so ideas written with AI don’t count toward them, disclosed or not. Badges follow the current rules, so those earned under earlier rules may be revoked.
To ensure a high quality of discussions and avoid having to refute and re-refute ideas already known to be wrong, members of Veritula are expected to make an effort to act rationally and take ideas seriously. They should stay at least somewhat up to date on discussion outcomes and avoid repeating the same discussions. Advocacy of ideas with pending criticisms and/or rejection of ideas without pending criticisms – in short, deviations from rationality as defined here – may result in a warning when someone should reasonably already know better. Repeat offenses may result in a temporary or permanent ban. Don’t rely on memory alone to decide whether to adopt an idea. Look it up on Veritula and go by whether the idea has pending criticisms – dispassionately, the way a judge would look up a law in a legal text. If you personally disagree, you can say something like: ‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’ To make things easier, there’s a search page. You can also subscribe to notifications on an idea to stay up to date on any new criticisms (hit the bell icon in the upper right corner of an idea). You can also enable email notifications in your settings.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, revoke badges, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once. Excessive arguing over a moderation decision, asking for exceptions or special treatment, complaining about the rules, and similar behavior, are all bannable offenses. What counts as similar, excessive, and asking for special treatment is up to moderators. It’s usually best to accept a moderation decision and move on.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.
Site-wide terms and the terms of any bounty you take part in apply as well.
Kitty Comes Home: my first game made with Claude Opus 5.5.
You play as a little kitten trying to find your way back to your mom.
Play for free here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/kitty-comes-home
Teaser trailer:
As a rule of thumb, please try making your writing less verbose. For example: ‘unknowability implies existence.’
Brevity helps not just your readers but yourself: the longer your text, the more vulnerable it becomes to criticism.
If your readers need more info, they can ask.